Talk:Al Gore/Archive 18

Revamping of "Environmental criticism" section
I propose to revamp this section as follows. First, the initial paragraph should be deleted. It is not worthy of a concise Al Gore entry. The initial paragraph (intentionally or otherwise) distracts from the more pressing concerns. Second, subheadings need to be added. The subheadings will be: "Personal energy consumption"; "Conflicts-of-interest concerns"; and "Alleged scientific errors". The subheadings are meant to improve readability and the inclusion of new information as it becomes available. Greenwave37 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not (re subheadings) This is supposed to be a summary of the article Al Gore and the environment, I only put in a subtopic on Criticism to illustrate the whole section is way out of balance. It's 2 to one criticism now. That's absurd. That subtopic was specifically NOT intended as a catch-all for criticism, but a temporary measure to allow the balance to be achieved. --Proofreader77 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why "Absolutely not" subheadings? What is so threatening about subheadings?  Do they not make the section clearer?  I would agree with an opposition to putting a subheading above every paragraph; but here, the section has become too long and disorganized not to have subheadings.  In any event, I am confused by the degree (i.e., "absolutely not") of opposition to including subheadings. Greenwave37 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Absolutely" not ... because this is a summary of an existing article: Al Gore and the environment. Have you worked in an (NPOV) description there? In any case be aware that the subtopic titles you have selected are POV (attack) subheadngs * 6.1.1 Conflicts-of-interest concerns * 6.1.2 Alleged skewing of data * 6.1.3 Allegedly excessive personal-energy consumption... Absolutely not. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to make "Conflicts-of-interest concerns" more neutral, or the subtitle: "Allegedly excessive personal-energy consumption." If you can think of a way to make these subtitles more neutral, please do so.  I am sorry if you are frustrated that such concerns and allegations exist. If you don't think the concerns and allegations are legitimate, perhaps you can provide sources to support your viewpoint. Greenwave37 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I agree with Proofreader77. As it stands this section is too long. It is meant to be a summary of the main article which is why we need the first paragraph. The section could use some work but in the area of turning it into summary of the main article. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph did not really summarize or introduce anything. It was just a rather useless paragraph about how ambitious Gore was. Greenwave37 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree. It is a summary of various environmental involvements. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A proper summary paragraph would say something like the following: "Four main environmental criticisms have been leveled at Gore: (1) his policies are too ambitious, (2) he has alleged conflicts of interest, (3) he has allegedly skewed data, and (4) he allegedly consumes excessive amounts of energy."  The current opening paragraph is nothing more than an obvious smokescreen put up by non-neutral Gore supporters. Greenwave37 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please let's follow WP:CIVIL. The paragraph in question reads as follows:
 * "Gore has been involved in a number of environmental activities since 2004 when he co-launched Generation Investment Management, a company for which he serves as Chair. The company was "a new London fund management firm that plans to create environment-friendly portfolios. Generation Investment will manage assets of institutional investors, such as pension funds, foundations and endowments, as well as those of 'high net worth individuals,' from offices in London and Washington, D.C."[181] A few years later, Gore also founded The Alliance for Climate Protection, an organization which eventually founded the We Campaign. Gore also became a partner in the venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, heading that firm's climate change solutions group.[7][8]"
 * The suggestions above do not summarize this particular paragraph though certainly it can be shortened and summarized and is open to such. At the same time, there isn't sufficient reason to remove this verifiable information. As for criticism, the section contains quite a bit of it in order to maintain WP:NPOV. I am not against adding criticism so much as making sure that all the facts are available from multiple newssources.-Classicfilms (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, the initial paragraph to the "Environmental criticism" has actually read as the following:
 * "Some of Gore's talks have been the subject of criticism. In 2008, he gave a speech at the DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. in which he called for a move towards replacing a dependence upon "carbon-based fuels" with green energy by the United States within 10 years. Gore stated: "When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon."[188][189] Some criticized this plan. According to the BBC, "Robby Diamond, president of a bipartisan think tank called Securing America's Future Energy, said weaning the nation off fossil fuels could not be done in a decade. 'The country is not going to be able to go cold turkey [...] We have a hundred years of infrastructure with trillions of dollars of investment that is not simply going to be made obsolete.'"[190]" Greenwave37 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it looks like we were talking about two different introductory paragraphs. Now that I am clear as to what you are referring to, I agree that the first paragraph of the section should summarize all of its elements, though it should be written in a way which both includes the criticism and the rebuttals to the criticism to maintain WP:NPOV. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Reworking environmental section

 * Great. Let's work together to improve this.  There is one more recurring criticism (#5) that I believe is worth mentioning:  the repeated allegation that Gore will not debate or respond to questions.  There does seem to be some validity to this allegation.  Although, Gore has opened himself up to questioning by Senators on a couple of occasions.


 * What is the clearest and most neutral way to organize this? Should there be a separate page for this?  Should there be subheadings to guide the reader?  Perhaps the most neutral way to phrase the intro paragraph would be to list the 5 major allegations in one sentence, and then follow up with a second sentence clarifying that all five allegations have been challenged or are disputed ... In any event, let's make sure to include the British High Court ruling, as I think that has become a key point of discussion.  Thank you for working with me to provide complete, objective, non-trivial information that people searching for "Al Gore" want to read.  Greenwave37 (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Ok, there are a number of ideas to work with here. I do want to point to the statements made above that the entire section on the environment in this article should just be a summary of the main article Al Gore and the environment - which is why comments were made above that the current environment section is long for a summary. In saying that I am not advocating one way or another for having or not having criticisms. Criticisms are always a part of Wikipedia articles. What I do think we need to consider is whether this amount of information belongs in the biography or the subarticle. It seems to me that one way to do this might be to focus on the main article, develop it and then make the environmental section simply a summary of all main points in the article. Does that make sense? I also think that a number of editors need to work on this information. Remember also that we are obligated to follow all the rules of Biographies of living persons - which is why we need to be rigorous in our fact finding and language. That being said I think that most editors here agree that the entire environmental section needs to be redone and should contain a balance of non-criticism along with criticism. So you might want to take a look at the main article, see how that can be developed and then return to this article for summary. That's just my feedback. Perhaps other editors can contribute as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interest of full disclosure, I do want to admit that I am a former liberal who has spent an extraordinary amount of time studying global warming, and I've come to the conclusion that Gore is a complete fraud: 100%. However, I seek to make my edits as neutral as possible.  I do want the wording to reflect the truth; whatever it might be. Greenwave37 (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone is welcome to edit in the Wikipedia. The goal is to understand the rules which govern how we edit and communicate here. So, it may be helpful in contributing to articles and so forth to review Five pillars which gives an overview of how contributions are made. No one should feel obligated to state personal beliefs - in fact, it might be useful to review what the Wikipedia is not or WP:NOT. Another important area to review is Conflict of interest to make certain that regardless of personal beliefs from any aspect of any article, an editor feels confident that s/he can contribute according to Wikipedia's rules. As I said above, the only thing to worry about with any biography is that we carefully follow not only the rules I mention above but Biographies of living persons. Any editor who has reviewed all of these sets of rules, understands them and is willing to work within the expectations of the rules is welcome to edit here.
 * On a different topic, in terms of how to rewrite the entire environmental section, this page is worth reviewing: Summary style. It goes over the way in which a summary for a main article section should be put together and its relationship with the main article. It's a lot to review at first but all of these rules help to create better articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Classicfilms, thanks for your help! I am going to read all of this and make constructive, neutral edits no later than Dec. 26th. Greenwave37 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've improved the section my making in clearer, more-neutral, and less redundant. Anyone, please don't hesitate to make neutral improvements as needed.  The part about his utility bill is still quite lengthy (at 3 paragraphs), but I wasn't sure what to cut.  I hope you like the changes. Greenwave37 (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you explain that Gore served only four months in the army and got an honorable discharge? Musicwriter (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with this criticism. Is there an issue here?  Is this a common concern? Greenwave37 (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for new section - Gaffs by Al Gore
I was wondering if it would be ok to add such a section, al is kinda well know for making absolutely outlandish claims such as the temp of the earth a few miles down is 10k degrees, or that the climategate e-mails were ten years old. I am sure there are others but before i go diging them out i`d like to know if such a section would be allowed? Ta thanks for any input :) --mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * no ~ DC (Talk&#124;Edits) 21:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any reasons as no why "no", a reason would be nice :) --mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Excuse DC, obviously woke up on the taciturn side of the bed this morning. :-) ... Perhaps one way to think of it is to look at George W. Bush and see if there is a section for Bush-isms. Bottom line is that usually an encyclopedia would not include a collection of the incidences of "mis-speaking" (might soon overwhelm all the rest of human knowledge. lol) Cheers, and Merry Christmas. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya i see what you mean, i had not thought of that. Perhaps a new article, Gaffs of the rich and famous :) --mark nutley (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're talking. lol Have a wonderful 2010. ^;^ Proofreader77 (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Posting signatures?
Just one question - isn't it dangerous in the sense of a threat of an abuse to post someone's official signature on the wiki page? I suppose it would be more appropriate to put a segment of hand writing instead. Nick897 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Was he ever Acting President?
Did he ever act as president after Clinton was impeached in 1998? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.122.117 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he was never officially made acting president. Likely at some point people followed his lead in Clinton's absence, but that wouldn't be uncommon for vice presidents. If Clinton had been fully impeached than Gore would have served out the rest of his term according to the US constitution, but Clinton was only ever impeached by one house of congress so it had no effect. 124.191.120.158 (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Bernard
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Thanks! Western Pines (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Inventor of the Internet?
Shouldn't Al Gore's invention of the Internet be mentioned here? After all, this website wouldn't exist if not for him.148.129.71.52 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that motion!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.171.9 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam section is repetitive and weighty. Why no criticisms section?
The Vietnam section says the same thing over and over about Gore not wanting someone else to go to Vietnam in his place. Additionally, most of the section gives NPOV to the decisions made by Gore to go; it reads like whoever wrote it wanted you to empathize with him -- not very encyclopedia like. Could someone please clean this up?

Also, why no criticisms section? - Gunnanmon (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It has the same number of criticism sections as George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, or even Dick Cheney. That seems fair enough. In general, explicit criticism sections are discouraged, as they attract fluff and make it hard to properly contextualize criticism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft Lottery Number
If you follow the link regarding draft lottery number, you will discover that the first draft lottery was held on December 1, 1669 which is after Al Gore enlisted. At the time of his enlistment, individual draft boards selected men to be drafted based on their age, oldest first. So as a recent college graduate, Gore would have been slated for selection earlier than most of the other men yet to be drafted, typically those without student deferments upon their graduation from high school. The loss of his college student deferment would indeed have put him at the front of the line for selection, so graduation brought with it a need to make an immediate choice. The options available included enlistment, National Guard or Reserve duty, flight to Canada, medical deferment (4-F), enrollment in Divinity School etc. Gore chose enlistment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.110.120 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit
Sorry about that, I was doing a little sandbox test and accidentally saved. --Simfan34 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Separation
I'm very sceptical to having this as a separate section. First of all because it's bound to remain a very short section, and makes for bad layout. Secondly because it's out of place, squeezed in between potential presidential runs and environmental activism. I think it would be better to simply add it after the marriage info in the bio. Lampman (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded.
 * John 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is too small for a full section but fine for a subhead. I tweaked the headers a bit to make it work. The article is arranged chronologically so it makes sense where it is but if you can think of a better way to convey the information, then go ahead and tweak some more. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading a lot of biographies and seeing Al Gore's page, why doesn't he have a Family and personal life section? Obama has one, Bush has a Marriage and family section, Cheney has a Personal life section and Reagan has a Marriages and children section. If Gore had such a section, this could be wrapped in.--NortyNort (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea - I think it was never made because there really wasn't a need for it. Go ahead and make the section. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I moved sentences and made a new section without disturbing the flow of the article and purpose of other sections.--NortyNort (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks for making the section. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The alleged sexual assault seems independently relevant here. Gore, through his attorney, cited the strength of his 35-year relationship with his wife to an Oregon newspaper in an effort to halt their publication of an article concerning the alleged assault. With the separation, the credibility of his statement (through his attorney) concerning the assault weakens. The fact that the denial contained a false assertion as its core support is important, and well-supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.91.12.76 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad its anonymous (as in UNSIGNED), it sounds like a reasonable edit.BGinOC (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court
Why does the mention of the Supreme Court up top only cite the 5-4 decision? There was a 7-2 decision finding fault with the Florida Supremes and a 5-4 decision on the remedy; the article clearly omits the readily-available additional info, and suggests that the Supremes decided the election when all the recounts gave the (ultimately way too close for definitive resolution) Florida vote to the Smirker. Why would it do that? Oh yeah, I forgot, everybody gets NPOV, but some get it more equally than others. This site is an elaborate fraud, sadly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.24.229 (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction says "the only time in history the Court may have determined the outcome of a presidential election.[5]"

This is very inappropriate to be in the introduction because it is an opinion. Other opinions exists, like it was the Florida Secretary of State that determined the election. This opinion should be removed. If it is explained in the text of the article along with other major opinions, it is possibly ok. But to state one opinion in the intro is bad. Otherwise, one could get a reference for many opinions, just read the editorial page of any newspaper. RIP Gary Coleman (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, with RIP Gary Coleman. That sentence does not belong in the intro, especially that of a bio. The purpose of the intro, after all, is to summarize the subject. Also agree that multiple sources, rather than a single editorial, is needed if it is to be included in the article at all.--JayJasper (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Initial discussion
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/prosecutor_al_gore_was_focus_o.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.8.90 (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Added information regarding alleged sexual assualt in Portland, Oregon by Al Gore. While the story WAS indeed broken by the National Enquirer, The National Enquirer is only credited for breaking the story, not as the source of confirmation. This news story in which investigation by the Oregonian (the cited source for the story) and a public press release by the Portland Police Bureau regarding the incident has shown such a report was truly made. Additionally, it is noted that the investigation stalled for lack of evidence and that the story as reported in the Oregonian is accurate in its reporting of the matter. Don't blame me for Al's human side peeking out...BGinOC (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again for BLP. (as well as the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not a news-aggregator or a gossip magazine (WP:NOT)). The Oregonian article states clearly that they haven't been able to interview the lady in question. The police are not investigating. No civil charges have been made. The Tribune at the time was unwilling to print the story etc. etc. All we have is the National Enquirer, and a speculative piece.
 * If charges are filed, or there is a new investigation - then it may be worthy of mention. But at the moment it is unsubstantiated allegations. [and pretty heavy ones]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It didn't just stall for lack of evidence, the case was closed for lack of evidence. There is a difference. KeptSouth (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The is not an encyclopedia. It's a LIBERAL propaganda sheet. Since when do you not

report ACTUAL police reports in Wikipedia. You guys already got burned trying to stonewall any mention of the John Edwards story which also started with the Enquirer. Listen liberals...I know you WEALLY WEALLY don't want this story to be true, but it is. And it's going in. Quit VANDALIZING this article with your own personal bias.

Demanding dispute resolution as the fact remains that an allegation is indeed on file and on public record regarding the man's possible actions. It is neither libelous nor inaccurate and reported accurately. Even if nothing more comes of it, it is still a historical discovery regarding our environmentalist white knight as his name is on public record regarding a sexual assualt. A simple search shows the story is now in the Boston Globe, Seattle Post Intelligencer and the Washington Post. I believe this has reached a critical mass point where the event in itself is worthy of mention and no where does the text state Gore committed such acts, it is written that it is ALLEGED that he did!!! BGinOC (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as no charges have been filed, they are in fact unsubstantiated allegations. If charges are filed - then it is a different matter entirely. This is currently on the same headline/news level as: "I have a baby with X" where X is any prominent person. Please read our policy on breaking news as well (WP:BREAKING) - this may have lasting effects - but at the moment it is not encyclopedic. Once more: We are not a news-aggregator but an encyclopedia, Wikinews may be a place for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't apply the same standard to Conservatives. What charges were filed against Larry Craig? Ted Haggard? Hmmmm.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.55.171 (talk • contribs)
 * Though it's pretty unquestionable that plenty of conservative biographies on Wikipedia have problems, that's no reason to introduce problems into liberal articles, too. --B (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another difference. Larry Craig admitted guilt at the time the ticket for disorderly conduct in a restroom was issued, and he paid a fine. Ted Haggard publicly admitted meth use with the male prostitute right after the story broke.KeptSouth (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim, by that standard, the WP article on Clarence Thomas shouldn't report the Anita Hill allegations as "no charges have been filed." Drrll (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Anita Hill made the sexual harassment allegations during Thomas' confirmation hearings. Right or wrong, this became a very important issue that almost derailed his confirmation. Thomas would not have been able to say he was undergoing a "high tech lynching" if it wasn't for Anita Hill. KeptSouth (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Copy of redacted police report here http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/images/news/2010-06/3056/36280/Gore_reports.pdf. If nothing else, then it should be stated and included within the article that Al Gore was a person of interest in a 2006 Sexual Assualt case in Portland Oregon with the police report cited as the source which then negates said WP:NOT as it is an official and historically significant government record and indisputable as a source document. Furthermore, said document is nearly 4 years old and hardly constitutes as breaking news as it has been available in public records if one merely wished to search. So what it was brought to our attention by the media, here are the facts of the case from the victim's POV as taken by the police regarding the matter showing that an allegation was made against Al Gore. Why is it no on would argue over this type of discovery if it regarded Washington, Lincoln or Reagan or even Dan Quayle? Is Al an untouchable as the hoorah content of the article seems to spew. Here is an opportunity to actually show he is human and susceptable to accusations like any of us.BGinOC (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Washington, Lincoln and Reagan are dead and no longer covered by our WP:BLP policy. I don't know if anything like this has been brought up about Dan Quayle - I would object there, too. And no, a police report about a case that was dismissed is only very rarely a "historically significant government record". At best it's a primary source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * here is a secondary source about it. Truthsort (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

All this stonewalling, under ABSURD pretenses - it's old news, it's new news, it's just the National Enquirer...it's not just the National Enquirer is being DOCUMENTED to prove just how BIASED liberal wikipedia is. Do not remove my edits! 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.55.171 (talk • contribs)


 * It seems like this is a fairly significant event, as google news is showing many outlets reporting it now. Torchiest talk/contribs 15:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --B (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular threshold this would have to reach in order to become appropriate for the article? Torchiest talk/contribs 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have to be relevant to the overall life of Al Gore. This is a biography of a living person on an encyclopedia. Do people really want to have a section on this, put it right next to Vice Presidency or Environmental Activism? Read through the story, there is nothing there. If something develops from the story, then sure. What we have here is, accusations with no evidence from an unnamed source from years ago. BrendanFrye (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Right now, everyone is simply reporting the National Enquirer story. A possible threshold would be when there is something to report other than that the Enquirer story itself.  My preference/suggestion would be to simply hold off for a few days before doing anything.  Let the story develop, then make a decision.  There is no deadline nor is there an emergency to have it added right now. --B (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I'm still trying to get a handle on the BLP stuff, which is quite a bit trickier than general article editing. Torchiest talk/contribs 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even the NYT reported on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24gore.html?scp=2&sq=gore&st=cse   Drrll (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? BrendanFrye (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the NYT didn't report on the allegations - it was the AP.KeptSouth (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I get the strong impression that there are those here who wish to protect their beloved white knight and keep him perched above the unworthy masses while at the same time there are those of us who believe that the privilege of serving in public office comes with the added responsibility that even an innocuous picture of one picking one's nose becomes news.

Fact: A police report was filed in early 2009 with the Portland Police Bureau alleging that Gore became sexually aggressive towards the masseuse. Obviously, in protection of the alleged victim, her name has been redacted from the report as the PDF version shows.

In my opinion he was a bit too horny for a masseuse and perhaps should have checked Craigslist for an escort service. Opinion aside however, while the media "leak" regarding said police report was indeed the National Enquirer, we aren't talking alien two-headed babies here. We are talking a major political figure in the United States who has been accused of sexual assault. While the Portland Police Bureau chose not to pursue the case, the fact remains that there is a public record of said allegation that has been verified thanks to the PPB releasing said reports and therefor should be worthy of mention in a NPOV. Others have cited examples such as Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill, Larry Craig and Terry Haggard in which allegations were made but no charges were ever filed. Even in Portland Oregon, the mayor Sam Adams (Oregon politician)biography mentions allegations of his sexual affairs and that he was cleared of wrongdoing.

StephenShultz responded to my Dan Qualye reference - in which his 'POTATOE' incident is mentioned as a blunder. So if we are not concerned about showing how stupid American politicians can be, why is it included?

Regardless of whether this goes anywhere or becomes the red herring of the century, its coverage by the NYT, the Oregonian, and now even People Magazine show that this event whether four years old or forty years old is a significant event regarding Gore's public record. If nothing else, the fact that the report was made is what is historical. Political sex scandals are of historical value and relevant content should be included as it has been for several other living person biographies - example Arnold Schwarzenegger which the last section is called Sexual Allegations.

So defenders of the faith, why dost thou defend thee knight so naively when others with similar incidents in their past are widely covered in a fair and just manner? The reports are showing that they are mere mortals and susceptible to errors in judgment and accusations of misconduct just like everyone else on the planet.BGinOC (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I stopped reading after your first sentence. How about a little civility or are you just here to troll? BrendanFrye (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I detect nothing uncivil about what was written above. There is a double standard being applied here in that Al Gore is seemingly above reproach regarding such matters while other articles regarding famous politicians and celebrities are not held to the same standard.BGinOC (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious troll is obvious. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a long-time Wikipedia editor, I think the allegations are worth mentioning briefly in a fair, objective manner (allegations have been made, but nothing proven yet) because it is indeed a notable event in Sen. Gore's life. Whether it is worth more than a minor mention in his lifetime of service remains to be seen -- perhaps yes, perhaps no.  So mention it briefly, I suggest, and leave it at that until something (if anything) more revealing or definitive occurs, such as a civil suit.  However, and this is important, the article should not cite the National Enquirer or some other tabloid as a source; rather, the source must be a fair and objective news source.  --Skb8721 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I just can't help but think if this same story came out about Bush, Palin, Romney, ect... it would have been added to their page.--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any politician in American politics is a potential target. For that matter so are our celebrities and the wealthy - Just ask Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears whose unmentionable parts were broadcast across the internet. Distasteful as it may be to those in other cultures, it is a part of American process and somehow, we seem to keep it going and make it work despite all of our other problems - in fact perhaps that is the very reason why we sensationalize everything - to forget about how messed up things really are all over the world and in our own personal lives.BGinOC (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BG - there have been allegations about Bush and Palin having affairs, written up in the tabloids and the RS's. These charges are not in wiki bios, and properly so. 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happens elsewhere - but i'd certainly remove it for the exact same reasons on those bios. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim, I am not certain how political history is studied or reported in your country of Denmark, nor do I claim to know how the political system in Denmark works in regards to public debate between candidates. However in the United States, mudslinging is a common political practice and the smallest of transgressions in one's life can and do become blown completely out of proportion in relation to the actual facts of the event. I still remember the Clinton campaigns when his opponents blasted the airwaves with his anti-war protests during the Vietnam War and his claims that he "didn't inhale." Today, our first African-American president admitted early on inhis campaign that yes he participated in the drug culture as a youth. It is a sign of change in America. Before President John F. Kennedy almost no one cared about the personal lives of politicians so long as they weren't crooks or corrupt (or at least openly so). In modern times, Portland Mayor Sam Adams has been the subject of ongoing debate and accusations of wrongful conduct between himself and a young male assistant with whom he had homosexual relationship with that began with kissing the assistant was before he was 18. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was all over the news in 2006 for allegedly touching the breast of an English reporter and his pot use in 1977 became an issue again in 2007. Love it or hate it, this is an example our "freedom of the press" at its best in America. American media can make history out of the smallest of personal events in the lives of our politicians because we are a country that still likes to believe that our leadership is made up of "We the people, for the people" and firmly believe that the personal lives of our politicians are open to scrutiny and review.

Anyway, per Skb8721's recommendation, I rewrote as gently as possible the allegations and focused on the media storm surrounding said event. I could add much more but Skb8721 suggested to keep it minimal. And so I have done so.BGinOC (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I removed it. There is no consensus to put this in the article especially as it's own section. BrendanFrye (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I lean toward including information about this, but I agree that at this point it doesn't need its own section or that much length. Drrll (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:Here is Gore's response:
 * "According to a source friendly with the Gores, Al Gore confirmed he received a therapeutic massage in his hotel room that night, and likely from the therapist making the accusation. But, the source said, Gore remembers getting a massage without incident and the therapist leaving on good terms. "
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062501709.html
 * -Classicfilms (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we get consensus on adding the allegations briefly in a fair, objective manner? The consensus could be to agree on the comment that Skb8721 (21:30 24 June 2010) added above. --Orangwiki (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * see next section - I do not see that we have consensus at all. Tvoz / talk 21:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

← As a point of fact, we were not "burned" by the Edwards National Enquirer allegations being proven true, as alleged above. The argument that was made then and I would make again is that the National Enquirer on its own is not a reliable source, and we were right to wait to include the Edwards story until there was legitimate media reportage on it and it was clear that it was a notable matter in his life story. We are not a news agency and it is not appropriate for us to include things that are reported in unreliable sources - even if they sometimes turn out to be accurate. There is no deadline, there is no rush. Let the story play out, let there be some objective third party reporting and analysis of its role in his life, then post a well-sourced summary - if this is deemed of significance to his life story. This is a bio of a man's life, not, as someone upstream said, a news aggregator. I'm not convinced that this is a significant matter in his life, so I'm not inclined to agree to include it - yet. Tvoz / talk 21:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Need for consensus
Furthermore, in what universe is it reasonable to include these allegations in a section called "Marriage and family"? I strongly object to this - this is a BLP, and it has not been demonstrated how these allegations, for which the accuser asked payment, has had any impact on his life story, let alone a significant impact. This could change, of course, but as of now, I don't see that there is consensus for including this material at all, nor do I think it is BLP appropriate, and certainly not in this section. Tvoz / talk 21:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Include. I haven't read everyone's arguments here, but I will include my 2 cents. I am a long time reader of Wikipedia and a major fan of it.  There have only been two times when Wikipedia has let me down.  This is one of those two times.  (This other is the fact that Wikipedia defines libertarianism as including anarchism, which is simply wrong and makes no sense.)  The fact that Gore's Wikipedia bio makes no mention of this Portland allegation is a major credibility loss for Wikipedia.  It exudes a sense that pro-Gore watchdogs are hovering over his entry to exclude anything potentially damaging.  Clearly, this is a major event in this guy's life, even if the allegations are 100% false.  If the allegations are unsubstantiated, denied, and unproven, then just say all of that.  I don't think anyone would argue that Wikipedia should act as a jury to the case ... but to not mention the case at all — c'mon! 72.79.130.164 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How exactly is it "clear" that this has had =any= impact on his life, let alone a "major" one? Do you have sources that say this has had a major impact on his life or is this just your opinion? And give it up about the so-called "pro-Gore watchdogs".  It's old, boring, untrue and insulting to boot.  Tvoz / talk 07:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's funny you mention that, because it's interesting to see other public figures who have unproven allegations against them (such as Lance Armstrong), and yet the Wikipedia page on them sees fit to discuss those allegations in detail. Hanxu9 (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hanxu, surely you don't think that just because one group of editors made that choice (which I might disagree with but I haven't read that page and don't edit there so can't say) means other editors have to follow suit? Our standard for bios, especially those that are already long because they are about a person with a complex life story that needs to be told, is that we make many decisions about what to include and what not to include, and it is based on the impact that matter has on the person's whole life story.  We don't or shouldn't report on every news story that crops up unless it is of great significance, and then only when there is adequate reliable sourcing that justifies its inclusion. Show us sources that demonstrate how these allegations have had any impact on his life and we can consider it. But just because a few editors think that this story is significant, and just because it is sourced, does not mean that it must be included.  Tvoz / talk 07:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a bit unencyclopedic to not allow ANY mention of it as a mere allegation at the very least. Just saying... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Include. I have already stated my reasons previously on this page.BGinOC (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pizza. Because it is delicious. Wikipedia is not a democracy, this vote is meaningless. I think the arguments to not include far exceed the arguments to include. I let it go when it was an addition to a section but this absolutely should not go in as its own section with two paragraphs. This is a biography of Al Gore's entire life and not a RSS Feed. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep out unless and until the Portland PD decides to ask the prosecutor for an indictment. Up to this point, the police have never contacted the prosecutor. Right now, the PD has reopened the case, but the police chief is saying it is for "procedural" reasons - because the case was closed the second time without a review by a supervisor. In other words, they need to cross their t's and dot their i's before closing the case again. As reported in the conservative WSJ! KeptSouth (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's important to keep a sense of perspective
There's been a lot of editing of this article recently in relation to the National Enquirer story, but I think it's important that we don't become too obsessed with what's in the media at the moment, and keep a sense of long-term perspective. Is this a significant enough event in Gore's life that it deserves mention in our biography? Bear in mind that Wikipedia articles are written to endure: if this was being read ten years from now, would anyone expect to see this story there? (Obviously, it's impossible to know, but we have to exercise our best judgement.)

I'm not saying it should be removed right away - as a current news event, it will be drawing people to this article, who want to see what it says. But we should wait and see if this story develops into something bigger (as, for example, the story of Tiger Woods' and John Edwards' extramarital affairs did) or if it fades away. If the latter is the case, and nothing further happens - no further revelations, no charges are brought - then we should consider removing it.

User:BGinOC mentioned several other politicians' articles which also contain mention of alleged sex scandals. While every case is different and should be considered in its own light, I think in general we do devote too much coverage to such things (for example, the Arnold Schwarzenegger article is another one that seems to put too much emphasis on similar allegations). Like I said above, Wikipedia articles are for the long term, and only the most noteworthy aspects of a person's life belong in their biography. If a news story about a politician leads to their resignation or criminal conviction, or is significant enough books have been written about it (like the Anita Hill case), then it is definitely notable and should be included; but if it is just a brief controversy that interests the news media for a few days before they move onto something else, then it shouldn't (or should only be mentioned very briefly). Bear in mind that pretty much every famous politician gets negative stories written about them, and from time to time becomes the target of people who think they've uncovered a 'scandal' about them. If no long-term consequences arise from it, it shouldn't necessarily be mentioned in their Wikipedia biography. Robofish (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (As an aside - this isn't strictly a matter of WP:BLP, as in these cases the allegations are usually reliably sourced; but it is related to that policy, as it's about how we write articles about living people, and how much weight should be given to 'scandal' stories in a fair biography.) Robofish (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you say here, except I am saying it should be removed now, and certainly should not be in the section it was placed in. Tvoz / talk 21:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should have a short but fairly written paragraph on the masseuse's allegations because if we don't, agenda charged cherry pickers will compose the worst possible rendition -- one that makes Gore look extremely guilty of numerous felonies. If Wikipedia worked the way it should, then I would completely agree with you that none of it should be in his Wiki bio. So what if Gore had a $500 massage 4 years ago? The assault charges were dropped for lack of evidence, the woman wanted $1 million from the National Enquirer, and she changed her story at least 5 times.KeptSouth (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're probably right that they will try to do that, but the article I'm sure is heavily watchlisted and if that starts we should request semi-protection or the like, and remain vigilant about keeping this stuff out, until such a time as there's more to the story and it has more impact on his life, if ever. I just don't think that the best approach is to put something into the article that people have problems with - and that there is no consensus for - just because we fear that worse renditions will appear. Tvoz / talk 02:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tvoz is correct; there are a great many eyes on this page, and out-of-consensus changes are promptly reverted. Unless something appears to make this matter more notable, it should be given the same shrift as the alleged affair a section or two above. PhGustaf (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this issue is a little different from the affair rumor b/c there was a police report. There was a very slanted paragraph in the article on the massage that made Gore look guilty as charged, except of course that he was never charged. It stayed in the article for a while - so I tried to balance it by putting in RS facts that showed why the case was closed. I think we should either establish a strong consensus to keep all references to the massage out as non notable, contentious or else we should allow in short balanced paragraph about it.KeptSouth (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perspective is that the police found the allegations insufficient to proceed. A newspaper which spent thousands of dollars and over a year tracking down the facts so that they could get an exclusive felt the story was not newsworthy and the source had serious questions about credibility. Technically, anyone can file an allegation with a police department as long as you say you think a crime occurred. The department will document it and sort out the truth afterward. This doesn't make the basic report accurate, newsworthy, or noteworthy for a living person's biography. Her prepared statement accused Gore of being a "crazed sex poodle": are we going to include that as well to help the reader reach a conclusion? Wikipedia is not The Smoking Gun. Heywood J2 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Prior the would-be litigant's having made the matter public through shopping the tale around, the Portland Tribune did not publish any story. Afterward, with the PD's having also come to release a recording of the unnamed party's allegations, this newspaper did publish an article about the same. In any case, at this point, the subject of this article's interest would probably best be served, I think, by WPdia's making some brief mention, after some time goes by, to the effect that in 2010 a woman massage practitioner made public a previous criminal complaint involving Gore she had filed with Portland Police; the Dept. thereafter made the woman's statement public, stating that its investigation was closed pending new evidence, with no charges filed.--68.196.153.114 (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Making such a statement - that allegations were made, but that no charges were filed due to lack of evidence, is a violation of BLP policies. Allegations have been made against other politicians such as Palin, G.W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton, and at some point these charges were repeated in RS. However, nothing came of these allegations, and they are not repeated in the articles. In other words, I think we have to wait a while and see if Gore is charged. As of the present time, it is looking like the case is going to be closed for the third time. KeptSouth (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Trib editor says no-publish decision "based on evidence, responsibility"
Portland Trib ed. Mark Garber said, "The idea that we were protecting Gore is ludicrous[...]. Our job isn’t simply to report that someone has been accused of an illicit act--months after the police had dismissed the case. Our job is to try to verify that such an accusation contains truth."--72.76.35.108 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor's attitude is also why the Portland Tribune is a dying leaf upon the vine of Northwest Journalism - more often than not the Tribune tends to gloss over the news unless it directly affects North Portland.

The Washington Post is reporting that the Portland police is REOPENING the case, link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063005127.html?hpid=topnews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.103.31 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but it is likely being re-opened temporarily for technical and procedural reasons, and not because there is a credible case that will proceed to an indictment. IOW, it's about to be closed again. Consider the fact that the complainant sold her story to the Enquirer, perhaps for as much as $1 million, and she billed more the $500 for the massage.KeptSouth (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Back in?
Now that the story is on The Today Show, and in the New York Times and USA Today, and Gore had to respond to it (through a spokesperson), it is impossible to avoid. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just hand waving conspiracy nonsense by the Right. Keep it out unless there is an indictment. Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if it "is just hand waving conspiracy nonsense by the Right", it must stay. Once this is shown to be "just hand waving conspiracy nonsense by the Right", then that can be added to the story. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, this is a bio of his whole life - not a place to report every allegation made against him. Show the significance to his whole life - right now this reads like a nuisance publicity-seeker, and no one has shown any evidence of its impact on his life to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia bio. And there is still no consensus here. Tvoz / talk 16:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. This is a minor section within a big long article about his life. No, it's not pleasant, but it's not up to Wikipedia editors to determine that it's insignificant. The fact that it is covered in Reliable Sources is the determination that it's significant. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Except of course that it is up to editors to determine whether it is significant - we have a whole policy about that called WP:NPOV. The relevant section is WP:DUE. (see also WP:IINFO bullet point 4) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.". So how does a single paragraph (that is consistent with WP:NPOV) about the topic violate WP:UNDUE? Supressing this information could be perceived as Whitewashing. Such allegations are very serious if proven true, and the fact that Portland Police decided to reopen the case is certainly noteworthy. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone here wants to "whitewash". The thing is: We have no idea (see WP:CRYSTALBALL) as to whether this is an important issue in Gore's life. But we are not a news-aggregator, and we have no deadline that we should meet. This is an encyclopedia, we by default are always describing things after the fact. As said Wikinews seems to be the place for this at the moment. If this turns out to be important, we will document it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are correctly referencing the WP policies. Nothing in the paragraph in question makes any assertions about the future; hence WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply. As for WP:NODEADLINE, nothing in that page (which is an essay, by the way, not a policy) says that information should be withheld until more information comes in. This is what the template is for. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I think that KDP has nailed down the policy pretty tightly. It is hard to fathom why someone would think that this material belongs in a biography of a living person on Wikipedia. As KDP has pointed out this is NOT appropriate for an encyclopedia. To include it here would clearly give it undue weight. High profile public figures are constantly subject to scurrilous accusations that are the fare of tabloids. We are not a tab, nor a news medium. If a charge is laid, it might be notable enough to include. Certainly if he were convicted it would be included. Right now, it does not belong here IMO. Sunray (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think WP policies are correctly cited, and you seem to be going down the wrong path by saying "We are not a tab, nor a news medium". At the time that the allegations first surfaced (2006) or first investigated (2009) this was just tabloid journalism. The fact that the police took the unusual step of re-opening a closed investigation, and the fact that he made a public statement through his spokesperson means it's notable, and that is why The Today show devoted over 6 minutes to the story. If anybody can quote a specific sentence from WP:UNDUE I'll let the matter go. So far, I haven't seen anything there that warrants suppression of this story. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It would entertaining to see reliable sources that claim that the NYT, Today Show, WashPo, USAT, etc. are all part of the "Right." Drrll (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with anything? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim, user TaRDIS claimed that this was some conspiracy by the "Right." This story is everywhere, including the left-leaning NYT, WP, Today Show, etc.  Because of the major development of the police reopening the investigation, Gore had to respond publicly about this.  I assume that you will now be working on BLPs of conservatives to remove unproven allegations about them, or is it different for them since they are evil conservatives? Drrll (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly Drrll - i don't care one bit or another about the "left" or "right" in US politics, since i don't live in the US. This is the article i am commenting on. Not any other. If there are wrongs in other articles - then take it up there. Focus on the article at hand. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So what would be your threshold for inclusion of this material? Imprisonment of Gore?  You may not be in the US, but I imagine that you do care about "left" or "right" in general. Drrll (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already commented on that. As for "left"/"right" those are quite different beasts from country to country, and extremely hard to compare - and in this particular instance i couldn't care less. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A red herring, for sure. Sunray (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So Sunray, would you support removing material about Anita Hill in Clarence Thomas' BLP? No formal charges were made against Thomas.  He wasn't convicted by a court of law. Drrll (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What differences do you see between the two situations? Don't answer that here. Just think about it. Then re-read the policies. Sunray (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Differences? In the case of Anita Hill, special Senate hearings happened because of the airing of Hill's charges via ideologically/politically motivated reporters, Senate staffers, and interest groups.  In the case of Gore, there is no indication that the airing of charges occurred because of ideological/political motivations. Drrll (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is completely off-topic - i btw. had no idea what you both where talking about - but i see several major differences, here is one: Several books written about the controversy. This is not the place to air your grievances over what you may feel is wrong about other articles (see: WP:TALK and WP:SOAP)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Anita Hill's accusation was televised Congressional testimony under oath which was referenced by the nominess and several Senators explaining how they voted on the nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.11.82 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael Crowley of TIME's Swampland blog expressed the belief that--"A police investigation into your private life is almost never good news. But in this case, it might be what Al Gore needs. [...T]he investigation was dropped after the accuser stopped cooperating. Which seems to be a strike in Gore's favor, but still hasn't satisfied many of the people debating the case now, which is a problem for him.) Perhaps the media could play this role, but this one seems to call for legal powers; and the media's institutions bias is generally toward proving, not debunking, scandal." I agree. And I also concur with those above who believe it would be reasonable for WPdia's BLP of Gore to do no more than to mention that as of July 2010 the Porland Police were investigating a four-year-old criminal claim against Gore by a local massage therapist of alleged sexual abuse.--173.63.107.126 (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * W/regard to a groping charge under Oregon law: "[PD spokesperson Mary] Wheat said the woman [Molly Hagerty]’s allegations, if true, would possibly be considered a charge of sex abuse in the third degree, a Class A misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in jail upon conviction."--173.63.107.126 (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I wish to move my comment to the bottom of the page.--71.187.173.34 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

← Oh please, Drrll. If you were compos mentis in 1991 you know that Anita Hill's testimony came close to derailing Thomas' Supreme Court nomination. Her testimony is a major part of his life story and would be absurd to not include in his bio. And before someone accuses me of left-wing bias, I'd say the same thing about Monica Lewinsky. But this story at present is nowhere near that threshold. If it gets there, we'll include it. Tvoz / talk 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Came close because of the complicity of the major media (and spinelessness of Senators). You know that if these accusations were against Dick Cheney or Dan Quayle, the news media would be making a much bigger deal about the charges.  Because of their partisan nature, the amount of news coverage (which has been substantial the past two days, btw) can't be the sole determinant for inclusion.  So what would be your threshold for inclusion of this material?  Imprisonment of Gore? Drrll (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda surprised that nobody has created an article about it at this point. I think it's gone beyond the tabloid phase and clearly needs to be covered somewhere somehow.  My suggestion at this point would be that it's worth 1-2 sentences here, which link to Al Gore unwanted sexual contact allegations or some such thing.  For a similar situation, consider Michael Vick.  When the dogfighting thing broke, within a day, it was added to his article and within three days, there was decent subsection on it, even though nothing had happened actually linking Vick to the dogs. (At the time, he claimed he never went to the house and just let his cousins live there and as far as we knew, that was true.)  I think this case is similar - it's certainly more than just a tabloid news item now and should be covered somewhere, though it does not need to be given undue weight in his biography. --B (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the last two comments - No one remembers Dan Quayle, and if Dick Cheney had a massage, he'd die. Sadly, that would be noteworthy in his bio. Vick was charged with a crime, and that is quite different from merely bineg accused of one and having the case closed two or three times. And it is beginning to appear that this case is going to be closed again. It was re-opened temporarily for procedural reasons so that a police supervisor could rubber stamp the closing of the case - read the recent statement by the Portland police chief. And, nNo prosecutor is going to put this woman on the stand - she was paid as much as $1 mil for her story by the Natl Enquirer. I say we should not put in the unsupported accusations in Gore's bio. There is no mention of two baseless cases about GWB in his bio, by the way.KeptSouth (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At least Cheney, as a human, can be massaged, unlike the wooden Gore.  Don't pretend that the story has not been independently reported by many news organizations, not just by the Enquirer.  Drrll (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's inappropriate. --B (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a close call whether to include or exclude. But I think Victor Victoria makes a very strong point about the appearance of whitewashing to Wikipedia readers. Also, I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to serve as a judge and jury, and then exclude information if we don't find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, if OJ Simpson was found not guilty in both his criminal and civil trials, would we try to exclude that he was ever accused of murdering that white couple? No, Wikipedia would mention (a) that OJ was accused, and (b) that the allegations were never proven. Maybe that is what we should do here (i.e., briefly mention both sides of the story). Maybe we can even Wiki link this Gore-sex-allegation section to a Wikipedia entry about famous people being the target of unsubstantiated accusations. Does such an entry exist? PS- I love y'all. 72.70.216.48 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a close call. Your argument and comparison to the OJ Simpson double murder case would make some sense if there was an ongoing case in the courts against Gore. There isn't. There is no judge, there is no jury. Gore has not been charged with anything. The prosecutor has not even been contacted by the police. The police found the evidence insufficent to proceed and closed the file - twice.  It has been opened a third time to take care of procedural issues - namely a case review by a high ranking police officer at the Portland PD. For the allegations to be notable now, we would have to speculate that he is going to be charged. Because speculation about future events is not allowed, (especially in a BLP where all the policies are more strict), including the masseuse's claims in Gore's Wiki bio is premature, per WP:Crystal. Right now, it is just a 'he said, she said' -contentious assertions - which are not allowed in a BLP.KeptSouth (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points. Although, the appearance of whitewashing might make him look guilty, even though he might not be.  It's not like people wont independently find out about the Portland incident.  Who knows, in any event, this is an awful incident, whether it's true, false, or somewhere in the middle. 72.70.216.48 (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Including unsubstantiated allegations in a WP article about a living person can make a completely innocent person look guilty. It's funny that you seem to miss that point. KeptSouth (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I think it looks worse for him that it says nothing about the incident, compared to if it explained the ways in which the allegations are likely bogus.  I guess Gore is damned either way.  At this point, I am more concerned about not doing damage to Wikipedia's credibility.  I think including the info would do the least damage, but I suppose it's a close call. 72.70.216.48 (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second thought, I don't think this is a close call. I think this exclusion makes Wikipedia look bad, because it looks like a blatant politically motivated cover up.  I'm not saying that it is a cover up, but that is what it probably looks like to most readers.  Hell, isn't this story on the front page of every major newspaper?  It's not like this is a rumor one of us overheard while in the changing room at Nordstrom's.  Gore's influence is done regardless.  Let's save Wikipedia. 72.70.216.48 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Calif. Gov. Schwarzenegger's former affair w/payoff to underage actress
 * 1) Political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger:"In August 2005, the Washington Post reported that American Media had paid former TV actress Gigi Goyette, $20,000 (USD) to keep silent about a seven-year affair Schwarzenegger had with her beginning in 1975, when Goyette was 16 years old. Because the age of consent in California is 18 years, Schwarzenegger may have committed statutory rape. In addition, American Media's knowledge of the Goyette affair put it in a position of being able to blackmail Schwarzenegger, providing further reason for Schwarzenegger to align his interests with theirs."--Gropegate
 * 2) Arnold Schwarzenegger: [...N]ews reports appeared in the Los Angeles Times recounting allegations of sexual misconduct from several individual women, six of whom eventually came forward with their personal stories. Three of the women claimed he had grabbed their breasts, a fourth said he placed his hand under her skirt on her buttock. A fifth woman claimed Schwarzenegger tried to take off her bathing suit in a hotel elevator, and the last says he pulled her onto his lap and asked her about a particular sex act. Schwarzenegger admitted that he has "behaved badly sometimes" and apologized, but also stated that "a lot of [what] you see in the stories is not true". --71.187.173.34 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Michael Crowley of TIME that it is likely in Gore's interest to have the case examined again by police.. Portland PD, btw, have preliminarily stated that the behavior complained of, if the evidence were to be considered sufficient enough to bring actual charges against Gore, would likely constitute "sex abuse in the third degree, a Class A misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in jail."--71.187.173.34 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you people still trying to keep this out? Wow, that takes quite some chutzpah. You should all get a barnstar of 'shameless and breathtaking bias'. Way to go! Sumbuddi (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

More Discussion of Inclusion of Accusation
In regard to the masseuse's accusation of sexual misbehavior against Gore, I think it should be briefly covered, accompanied by Gore's defense that he didn't do it. As well the police's back-and-forth investigating-dropping-investigating and the masseuse's seeking of the $1,000,000 pay-off from National Enquirer. We should keep it short but with those key points. I looked at WP:BLP and some Wikipedia tutorial that referenced accusations. They don't appear to rule it out, as long as we provide his defense and relevant contextual information. I am concerned about the practice of including naked accusations esp. ones the police had looked at and discarded but now they picked it again. Perhaps if they drop it again and it comes to nothing the text should be deleted, but as it is now I'd say include the alleged incident. I'd be cautious about the appearance of whitewashing, and I don't think undue weight WP:WEIGHT is a reason to keep it out altogether. DanielM (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators Noticeboard /Incident - filed on allegations problem
Please see this site if you would like to give your opinion on whether the masseuse allegations should be included in the article now. KeptSouth (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over allegations of sexual abuse
The Al Gore article is in dire need of attention by those in higher authority than the editors and writers who try to add content only to find it deleted 5 minutes later by another editor or writer. On one side we have those saying with the Portland police Department officially reopening the investigation of the case. Relevance has been met, it is a matter of public record, the name of the accuser has been released and it has been the subject of newspapers and magazines across the nation. This event, even if it falls flat on its face and is found to be completely groundless, will remain a significant historical highlight of the political history of 2010. At stake is Wikipedia's reputation for being unbiased. This matter has gone far beyond a flash in the pan event, yet those that wish for it not to be included refute every attempt at logical and precedent setting examples of other living person biography articles that do include similar allegations of sexual wrongdoings. Now that the case has been re-opened by the Portland Police Bureau, it is only logical to include a section with a paragraph or two recording the case for future reference. After reading his letter, I must ask - what would Jimmy Wales do? I think he said to BE BOLD! With that we are trying, but as the discussion is turning into a war room full of too many little chiefs arguing the point incessantly and not allowing edits to be posted. BGinOC (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Think this should be excluded for the time being, per WP:NOTNEWS. There does not seem to be any reason to suppose that this will have any enduring notability. The same allegation has surfaced before and been investigated by prosecutors, but in the four years since then, it does not seem to have been deemed worthy of inclusion in the article. If there's a proescution or other consuence worthy of note, then maybe it should be included. Wikipedia does not lose anything by waiting at least short while to see if the story fizzles out or whether it grows in significance.--FormerIP (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This hasn't surfaced before. The Portland paper had information on it a few years ago, but decided not to publish. It was recently broken by the Enquirer. To quote from the notability policy, this is hardly "routine news reporting" as far as Gore is concerned, and to say that it is misrepresents the gravity of an allegation of sexual assault. The fact that there is an allegation that's not obviously false and is garnering so much national attention is itself noteworthy. Mforg (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait for notability to be established. The Enquirer is not known for establishing notability, after all...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Enquirer may have been the first, but it is hardly the only source, e.g. The Washington Post. Drrll (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Leave the "tabloid trash" out and wait to see if it mounts to a "historical notable incident" in his life. Until then it has no place here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with FormerIP above in that this should be excluded for the time being as a the story may either grow or "fizzle out". If the story grows then it should be added, if not, no harm done. I was ok with a few sentences in the article as I didn't think it was a weight violation, however, whenever anything is added it grows to its own section with two large paragraphs, effectively making it pov in its undue weight on a blp article. So yeah, keep it out until we have the benefit of hindsight, wikipedia is not an rss feed. BrendanFrye (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is tabloid material, much the same as Articles for deletion/Vera Baker was a few months back...an article created and pushed by the same editor. This is agenda-driven "me against the ZOMG nasty CENSORS! editing, not editing designed to improve the encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that it isn't tabloid trash any more. When it first broke and only the Enquirer was reporting it and any other story reporting it was only citing the Enquirer, I agreed that it should not be in the article. But now, Al Gore and Portland is getting 3150 g-news hits in the last 24 hours . I'm sorry, but this is clearly notable and if this were an a-political topic, it wouldn't even be a question. You take any comparable allegations, true, false, or indifferent, for a non-political figure and go back in history and you'll see that the threshold has been far less than the one being suggested here. Look at Ben Roethlisberger - he was accused on July 17, 2009 and on July 21, it was added and has stayed forever. --B (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's still trash by my definition, and it really says more about corporate media itself becoming more tabloidish in an effort to stay relevant in the fractured 24/7 news cycle. But anyways, the thing with Big Ben though is that there was serious and newsworthy repercussions and fallout for him as the result of those investigations...investigations that did not result in charges, true, but made it quite clear that something untoward happened that night.  All we have here is one woman's accusations and the police saying they will look into it.  I'd like us to be more mindful of WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM, and place more emphasis on being right than being first. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I ask you this. Find one comparable example of a well-known non-political or Republican figure who was accused of something similar and the accusation was not added to his or her article until after his guilt or innocence was known or charges had been filed.  Even MSNBC (not tabloid and far from a right-wing rag) has picked it up and written multiple stories about it.  I agreed with not adding it a week ago, but it's clearly notable now. --B (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to stay away from such articles, i.e. my teeth grind just thinking of Sarah Palin, so that is just a mess I'd rather avoid. As for your example request, I cannot think of anyone current off-hand, and I'd rather not spend time delving into ancient article histories to see what was added when and by who at the time of the even, but David Vitter's hooker sub-section could probably use a bit of a trim though...I have never liked "Person A said this, but then did !A" types of gotcha editing, and if the "Canal Street Madam" was simply an allegation unproven, then it should be axed completely. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia is not a news medium. As WP:NOTNEWS puts it: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." We should not be breathlessly following the latest allegations against notable figures. As has already been said several times, above: To include it in a BLP would clearly give it undue weight. High profile public figures are constantly subject to scurrilous accusations. If a charge is laid, that will be a fact. Right now, it is pure speculation and does not belong here.Sunray (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you the same question I asked Tarc. Find one example of a similar accusation being made where it received mainstream media coverage and it had not been added to the subject's article within a comparable period of time, even if the charge was unsubstantiated or never led to charges being filed.  A week ago, this argument made sense.  I agreed with it.  It was only the National Enquirer and a few news outlets reporting, "the National Enquirer says ...".  But we're beyond that now.  Neutrality demands that we not exclude negative information just because you agree with the POV of the subject. --B (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is never justification to say "but it has been done before" and it would be senseless to compare this with other situations. The case must be decided on its own merits. Based on evidence thus far there is no justification for including it. Sunray (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If this one were being decided on its merits, that would be fine, but it's being decided on its politics. As has been pointed out, WP:WELLKNOWN may as well have had this as it's example it's so eerily similar. If you can't find an example of your standard being applied somewhere in some other article, then I propose there is a problem with your standard.  As I said, if this were an a-political figure, this wouldn't even be a question. --B (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The condition set by WP:WELLKNOWN is: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant..." There is no incident until a charge is laid. If we do not hold the line on that, we become little more than a tabloid. Sunray (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! It makes complete sense to compare the Gore article situation with similar situations regarding other articles.  That's one of the ways you determine if A) a standard is logical and can be applied in a beneficial way, and B)*If* that standard is being applied evenly and fairly.  If similarly sourced material is being put into the Mel Gibson or Sarah Palin article with no apparent violation of WP policy then one would expect the same rules to apply here.  If they don't, then the powers that be here need to find out why, and implement policies and actions that remedy the situation.  It's also going to be interesting if these allegations end up being included on a permanent basis because if "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" there will be absolutely no basis for excluding mention that both the President and Vice President of the administration in which he served will have had serious accusations of sexual assault leveled at them by witnesses who were willing to sign statements under oath.  Molly Haggerty being Gore's accuser, and Juanita Broadrick being Clinton's accuser.grifterlake (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Standard? If scurrilous material was added to the Gibson or Palin article, it should have been removed. But this is an absurd argument. These cases are not comparable. Gibson, if I recall, was convicted of a crime. Sunray (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A one sentence mention is reasonable at this time. The coverage is significant and non-trivial.  Yes, it's almost certainly a bogus charge, and I'm sure someone can craft a sentence that makes that plain. Hobit (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What would be the justification for a one-sentence mention? Again, we are not a news medium and this is a BLP. Sunray (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the appeal to the BLP policy, have a look at WP:WELLKNOWN. This is almost the same as the second example in that policy--a politician allegedly has an affair, but denies it, and it's covered in the New York Times. According to policy, that should be included in the bio. That's the Gore situation, except the charge is sexual assault, a crime, which is more serious than an affair, and the coverage has been more widespread! Mforg (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Using the logic of those who want to exclude this, what is the justification for inclusion of anything?  WP:NOTNEWS is being thrown around as a justification, but just saying "NOTNEWS" can't silence all debate.  What is the justification for including anything on Wikipedia?  One of the criteria in Notability (events) is that an event is likely notable when the news coverage is re-analyzed.  Well, Politico has a story about how the saga has gone "mainstream".  The Daily Mail (UK) implies that Gore is not attending Chelsea's wedding because of it .  Contrast this with, for those who remember it, an edit war over adding a paragraph about LifeLock to Fred Thompson when the only source was a left-wing columnist that was roundly criticized for writing the piece.  If we used that standard here, half of the article would be about the allegations. --B (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When adding material to articles about high profile individuals we should ask whether the addition would be considered in the years ahead. in this case we do not know and therefore should omit the material unless it becomes relevant.  If people are interested in reading the latest news, they should go to news websites.  TFD (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Omit from Al Gore. The DA announced that Gore has been cleared due to "contradictory evidence, conflicting witness statements, credibility issues, lack of forensic evidence and denials by Mr. Gore".  I'm not sure about the event pages and the accuser's page, but a petty criminal accusation rejected before trial is definitely not notable enough for this bio.  Thundermaker (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem Solved -- Countless Stand-Alone Wikipedia Article on Alleged Sexual Assault
This discussion is pretty much moot. Wikipedia now has dozens upon dozens of other articles about the incident, including article about the victim, articles about the Oregon hotel, articles about the Oregon police department, articles about the massage agency etc. etc. all of which provide the relevant links to the innumerable New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine articles about the alleged assault. It looks like the attempt to censor mention of it in this article has merely led to it proliferating all over Wikipedia like a virus.TruthfulPerson (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see a single one of the articles in question. None that make any mention of this, anyways.  Would you care to point these articles out? Tarc (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what he means either. Portland Police Bureau (Oregon) makes no reference to the allegations, nor should it. --B (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * B -- Thanks for the tip -- I've remedied that particular omission. Any other suggestions?TruthfulPerson (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure he's talking about Molly Hagerty, the AFD for which can be found at Articles for deletion/Molly Hagerty. As for "dozens upon dozens of other articles about the incident", he's lying. I know, I know, WP:NPA, but remember WP:SPADE. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Tarc -- I'm sure you didn't see the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post coverage of the original incident either (I know, they're "Tabloids" in this particular case). Anyway, to be, I'll suggest you Google the name of the alleged assault victim, you know, the woman who no one disputes was giving Al Gore a massage near midnight in an Oregon hotel. Something a lot of married men do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you missed the point; being reliably sourced is not the only criteria for article creation or additions to existing ones. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Tarc, I fully realize the articles must also be politically correct in the eyes of the editors in charge of protecting the reputation of the particular Democrat in question.TruthfulPerson (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you be trolling any harder? BrendanFrye (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What you claim to "realize" is utter fiction. This isn't the place to continue this tangent though, so you may wish to head to WP:ANI and find the discussion that has begun regarding you.  And Brendan, you aren't helping.  WP:TEA, if you would. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Riiiiight, Tarc, it makes perfect sense that Wikipedia has better news judgment than every reliable source on Earth and that's the only reason the incident hasn't been covered. Unfortunately, I disagree with your assessment regarding newsworthiness and substantiation, as well as what consitutes a "tangent."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, Wikipedia doesn't have or need better news judgment than anyone. That's because Wikipedia is not a news site. It's an encyclopedia. Check WP:NOT. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good grief no, this has no business being in the article about the Portland PD. You're hearing what you want to hear. --B (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

consensus still pending - see talk page
I don't see any pending consensus. Pending consensus would be reasonable conversation of how to word this, which are the best cited sources and how large to make it. What you people are doing to fighting inclusion and trying to run out the clock, LIKE IT'S REALLY GOING AWAY. This is despicable! 74.87.151.147 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the addition that you and "TruthfulPerson" keep trying to edit-war into the article never actually appears in the article, right? Thank god/fsm/buddha for the new Pending changes method. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have blocked as an open proxy.  Other admins are free to review, whatever. --B (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is actually more of a difference in how people view Wikipedia. Some people see WP a place to read news - but WP is an encyclopedia, and not a news-aggregator, that means that we reflect issues after their importance can be determined. The other issue, is that we are talking about a living person here, and thus have to be extremely conservative with regards to what goes in, and how much focus is put on it. This particular case is currently in the "X claimed Y about Z", and is of the breaking news type - which is something that may have lasting impact, but that impact cant be determined at the moment.
 * For those who can't wait - there is Newspapers, blogs, opinion-articles to read and Wikinews is available as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will ask you the same question I have asked above. Please find one example of a comparable situation involving an a-political figure or a conservative figure where the allegation was not added.  In the ones I can think of - Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, and Fred Thompson, it was added much sooner and with a much lower threshold of media coverage.  Another user gave Arnold Schwarzenegger.  (Yes, Vick was obviously guilty, but at the time it was added to the article, he was denying everything and there was no actual evidence of his involvement.) --B (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What would an appropriate discussion of this look like? For example, how 'bout: ''Two weeks after the Gore's breakup announcement, a Portland masseuse sold a story to the National Inquirer for $1 million alleging that Gore had sexually assaulted her in 2006. Her story was denied by Gore and no corroborating evidence was ever presented. Portland police declined to press charges because of a lack of evidence.'' 72.79.134.73 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * About ten minutes after you put that into the article it will balloon to two paragraphs and then migrate to its own section. Gaining sentience and growing at an exponential rate, it will soon push far beyond the boundaries of Undue Weight. I'm kidding, but I'm also not. I'm ok with a small mention but it will not stay small, that's the reason the original small mention got pulled. BrendanFrye (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 72, have the police re-declined to press charges or are they still looking at it? Regarding the slippery slope, one advantage of having a separate article is that attempts to grow the section here can be curtailed by moving it there. --B (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi B - the fact that you can ask that question is one reason this material should not be in the article at the present time - it obviously is an evolving story, and we do not know where if anywhere it is going or what impact it has had, is having, or will have on Gore's ENTIRE LIFE STORY. I know that you know as well as I do that we are not a newspaper or RSS feed, and that's why shouldn't rush to put in what is by definition an incomplete story.  When more is known,  and the dust settles - at least some of which is being stirred up by some of the very people who are agitating for it to be in NOW (and I do not mean you) - then we can decide in a rational manner how much if any of this story belongs in his bio.  The mantra is there is no rush, there is no deadline.  Good to see you, even though we often have disagreed.  Tvoz / talk 19:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeh, this isn't a big impact on his life story, the majority of guys I knew in high school and college were accused of sexual assault all the time. It's not really a big deal. Many other sentences in this Wikipedia page, like He was introduced by his eldest daughter, Karenna Gore Schiff, who was pregnant at the time with her first child.[114] are much more important to readers looking to learn about Al Gore's life. (sarcastic) 72.79.134.73 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Gore's status with the police is right now. I do suspect that dozens of editors will try to insert the "sex poodle" language as soon as this discussion goes live. We'll have a Wikipedia sex poodle war.  I'm not sure if I really care about that though.  The entire section can always be parred down once this commotion blows over, a few months from now perhaps. 72.79.134.73 (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how I feel about it as well. The topic is too hot, among both sides, right now. I don't see how we can put it into the article in a npov manner because it will grow from additions from both defenders and detractors. It's really not worth a large mention considering the scope of the article. Waiting for the dust to settle seems to be the most prudent course of action. As I mentioned, this used to be in the article but then it ballooned to two paragraphs and its own section. This is why we can't have nice things. BrendanFrye (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to suggest that we should wait a moment longer to add this story. This exclusion has already been a major embarrassment (and credibility loss) for Wikipedia because of its blatant whitewashing appearance.  (I don't think the exclusion has helped Gore either.)  I meant to say that several months from now the story can be minimized in size, if need be. 72.79.134.73 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I disagree with that completely. Just throw it in and let it take up a tenth of the page and then cut it down a few months later? No, that's not going to work. Also, throwing around the terms "whitewashing" and "major embarrassment" is just kind of silly. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No needs for theatrics, I don't think that it was a tenth of the page. What it was, is verifiably cited facts, about an investigation of an felony, that are somehow missing from an article about the investigated person. Mmmmmmmmm.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stooly (talk • contribs)
 * Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? What is that? BrendanFrye (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........... Really, drop the theatrics! Do you think the omission of "alleged" means Jojhut is acting in bad faith? Your own knee-jerk reaction probably says more about bad faith editing. Stooly (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm......Who is using theatrics? And the missing "alleged" is a violation of wp:blp. You should know that, you've been editing here for a while, probably just switched accounts, right? Mmmmmmmmmmmm? BrendanFrye (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't bother responding to BrendanFrye about non-relevant points. He appears to be trying to make off-topic comments in an attempt to stall the debate and impede inclusion of this subject in the article. 72.79.134.73 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What damage will be done by including this? 72.79.134.73 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP problem with the section. There are plenty of secondary sources and its consistant with similar articles dealing with the same subject matter.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I've stated above, is that there is a BLP problem. We deal in facts in an encyclopedia. As WP:WELLKNOWN puts it: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article." You argue that it is well-documented. The problem is that is an allegation only; it is neither notable nor relevant unless he his convicted. Sunray (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sunray, you're misreading this. The policy you quoted gives the criteria which an allegation has to meet in order to be included. How can you then say that it can't be included because it's only an allegation? Do you mean that it isn't notable *because* it's only an allegation? I don't think that applies here, given the coverage this has received. At any rate, here's the quote from WP:WELLKNOWN that we should be using for guidance: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." I really struggle to see how the precedent set out in the policies could be more clear-cut. Mforg (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mforg, you have obviously done a close reading of WP:BLP. I respect that. Mindful of what you said, I went back and re-read WP:BLP from the top. I noted this: "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care..." Then further on, this: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist..."
 * The only source for the information about the allegations against Gore is a story that a woman sold to a tabloid. The police have not laid a charge. You refer to coverage in the New York Times. The NYT has not run a story on this, only what they call a “brief,’ stating only that the Portland Police have reopened the case citing “procedural issues.” How are we to respond? While the media are obviously impelled to print something, I think we have to take seriously what several editors have said above: we are not news media. Sunray (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to say, although I posted a lengthy comment earlier on this talk page questioning whether inclusion of this story was appropriate, I now think it definitely is. As long as it's kept brief to avoid undue weight concerns, I don't think it raises serious problems. At some point, you have to ask not 'are we making this article unbalanced by putting this story in?', but 'are we making this article unbalanced by leaving this story out?'. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Closing in on sex-assault-allegation consensus?
For nearly 2 hours, there has been no response to my simple question: What damage will be done by including this? If no response is given within the next 3 hours, the consensus here supports inclusion. If you respond to my question, try to articulate your beliefs in a compelling manner without citing WP rules as a crutch. Thank you. I am glad this appears to be winding down. 72.79.134.73 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heavens no, it's been almost two hours since I didn't answer your inane question. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this yet another editor you're lashing out against? Stooly (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok first day of use account. Did you just migrate over from an IP? You're obviously a long time user. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol. Are you going to answer my question about Al Gore and this article; or do you want to delay by having a discussion about my IP address? 72.79.134.73 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Heavens no" -- this language suggests that inclusion will be a great horror. But why?  What is the horror you fear? Again, what damage will be done by including this?  I am open minded.  Can you articulate a compelling response to my question or not? 72.79.134.73 (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't grasp the meaning of the "heavens no" statement. It was in reference to your unjustified statements of consensus and your silly 3 hour deadline demands. Wikipedia is not a hostage situation, your demands are meaningless. :) BrendanFrye (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The debate won't go on forever. A consensus already seems to have formed.  Are you going to articulate a response to my question or not? Thanks. This is your opportunity to speak up.  Your non-material, dilatory, back-and-forth bickering is not helping your case. 72.79.134.73 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A consensus for inclusion has been reached regarding the Portland sexual-assault allegations. 72.79.134.73 (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't.BrendanFrye (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BrendanFrye is the only opponent, yet he refuses to articulate why he is in opposition. It's time for this to stop. 72.79.134.73 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my comments up in the previous threads. I've explained my position quite thoroughly, multiple times. :) BrendanFrye (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. There is no consensus at this point. Sunray (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What Do You Think About This
Hello ladies and gentleman. In reading this conversation, I was wondering if these rules apply to any WP:BLP. Just came across an edit to Mel Gibson, apparently he's accused of doing or saying something. Quite similar to what's going on here.

"In July 2010, it was reported that he had been caught on voicemail making misogynistic and racist remarks, stating that his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva would be "raped by a pack of niggers".[100] He was also recorded making a threat to burn down Grigorieva's house.[100] Gibson was barred from coming near Grigorieva or her daughter due to a domestic violence restraining order.[100] Civil rights activists commented that Gibson had shown "patterns of racism, sexism and anti-Semitism" and called for a boycott of Gibson's movies.[101][102] Gloria Allred stated, "As an attorney who has represented many sexual assault victims and as a woman who is a survivor of rape myself, I want you to know how deeply offensive, appalling and harmful your reported statements are."[102]"

For comparison, already checked Alec Baldwin when remembering him calling his preteen daughter a "Thoughtless Little Pig" on voicemail. Didn't see it in that WP:BLP, so I came here. Should it be removed? We've seen WP:NOTNEWS used here and all, can someone please remove this news from Mel Gibson. Edit Protection won't let me. Thank you very much and have a nice day! Stooly (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above quote states: "Gibson was barred from coming near Grigorieva or her daughter due to a domestic violence restraining order." Do you not see the difference? A domestic violence restraining order is the ruling of a court--a fact. With Gore, we have an allegation, where no charge has been laid for over 3 years. This is hardly comparable. Until Gore is convicted of something, it may be covered by the media, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Is that clear? Sunray (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that's different Sunray, but I don't think a *conviction* is needed before a matter of this nature goes in. I would think an indictment by grand jury or other formal charge by the police certainly would be enough. I guess I would say 1) mere accusation not enough, 2) investigation maybe enough, 3) formal charges certainly enough. Looking to the future a bit, I would go on to say that should the investigation be dropped, the text in the encyclopedia should also be dropped. DanielM (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat in agreement - i'd just add that my take on the weight here, is that it should be included at the moment where it should be in an encyclopedia no matter if the charges stick or not. [ie. a "point of no return" - the moment where we wouldn't remove it even if no charges stick - that is the point where it stopped being news - and became biographical material.]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither the former affair with a minor by Arnold Scharzenegger (Political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger) nor Gropegate (Arnold Schwarzenegger) involved criminal investigations at all. Should either or both of these sections in WP articles be deleted?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care one bit about Arnold. This is the article, and the particulars that we are talking about. [but i do know that "groping" (if its the same) at least in that case has had a lasting impact - see Doonesbury (which we also get in Denmark)] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that a Doonesbury cartoon has more weight than an news article in the Washington Post? So what's needed is a cartoon about Al Gore?  Drrll (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Touche!--Jojhutton (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't what i'm saying. But a Doonesbury characterization that runs for years on end based on a particular issue, has more weight than a short term incident. (and this so far is). It has a global and lasting impact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True that we ought to stay focused on the present aspects of the Gore matter, but I would stick to my logic, Frances, the groping accusations against Schwarzenegger should be deleted if criminal charges were never brought or if they were dropped, with the addition that a pay-off for silence or a civil settlement should not be prohibited from the article. My main concern here is that a presumably honorable person's character not be diminished in his or her Wikipedia article by mere accusations, without substantially more. And yes, even if covered in the article while charges and investigations are pending, they should be deleted if those are dropped. However, and lastly, should it go to a trial I do NOT say it should be deleted, even should the verdict be "not guilty." DanielM (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The value of including details
If the exclusion of the facts here causes Gore to lose credibility, and global warming wrecks havoc, it's our fault. Can't you see why we need to get out the facts? 72.79.134.73 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IP: You mean such things of possible relation to Hagerty's $500, late-night massage of Gore as: she sent letters to hotel after this session involving Gore, continually emphasizing her discretion and confidentiality with concern special requests from VIP clients during late-night massages? and in which she was attempting to get Gore's contact information to discuss an additional 20% gratuity she asserted had been promised her? or, whatever multiple-sourced info the Portland Tribune obtained that lead them to question some of Hagerty's assertions? or records from the area's Family Court that show Hagerty had a number of appearances concerning charges levied against her boyfriend(s), including one case, at least, in which she had given testimony asserting vaguely that her boyfriend had acting intimidating, which resulted in the judge's declining to grant the restraining order requested (which, by the way, are in most cases granted fairly routinely)? (Hmm. Come to think of it, all of this is very messy--and maybe we should let police/courts &c shake whatever details out before we decide which, if any, are appropriate for inclusion in WPdia.)--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points, but most of these details look exculpatory. I think we can construct a few sentences that put Gore in an innocent light.  Right now, it looks like we are trying to hide something.  This incident is no longer worth hiding, because everyone knows about it.  We need to pause and think about what course of action will best maintain Gore's credibility. 72.70.218.150 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The best way to "maintain Gore's credibility" would be to wait for the investigation to proceed. If they don't charge him, then we haven't smeared him with innuendo and a partial rendering of the facts. If they do charge him, then we will have more facts to put in the article as the indictment will recite them. However, charges keep looking less and less likely because the more we learn about the witness, the less credible she seems.KeptSouth (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even thought this is "just a talk page," I want to balance the questions I raised in my post above (and also, in a way, repond to the IP's suggestion that WPdia perhaps should seek to explicitly "help" former Vice President Gore; warning: long quote ahead). Anyway, here are some smart and perceptive sentiments as expressed by the op/ed editor of Ore.'s Statesman Journal, Dick Hughes. "The former vice president should never put himself in a potentially compromising situation. If he needs a legitimate late-night therapeutic massage in his hotel room, then have other people present as well. [...] Trying to sell one's story to the Enquirer is not a seemly way to seek justice. However, the story leads to important ethics issues: Should the news media report such allegations, and what stock should the public put in them? My thinking regarding the first point has evolved over the years. I am now convinced that how one acts in his or her private life is a good indicator of how she or he will perform in public service and professional life. [...] If the Portland incident occurred as the woman described it, I'm not surprised that she waited to report it or that she vacillated on being interviewed by authorities. It's not easy to come forward after a personally traumatic event. I once experienced an incident that was so traumatizing that more than a year elapsed before I reported it. [...] Although the Portland police have reopened their investigation, we may never know whether anything inappropriate or illegal occurred in Gore's hotel room. However, the allegations do offer several lessons: 1. Never put yourself in a compromising situation or one that could give rise to rumors. 2. If you are sexually assaulted, report it — at least to the Mid-Valley Women's Crisis Service (it's for men, too), or a similar program, even if you're not ready to go to the police. 3. Don't assume people are lying. Believe the victim unless or until she or he is proved wrong. 4. "Unwanted sexual contact" always is wrong. It's not "just having fun." It's not "boys will be boys." It's wrong."--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. That is a very good quote.  Unfortunately, in the backdrop of this particular allegation, is something much greater than a "he said / she said" about a sexual assault.  Here, we are talking about the credibility of a man whose influence may determine our fates.  With the greater good in mind, the best thing we can do for Gore is to include the facts here, which overwhelmingly suggest that the masseuse cannot prove her story beyond a reasonable doubt.  Otherwise, with continued exclusion of the story, we are painting Gore as guilty, guilty, guilty.  I don't want to hurt Gore's cred, even if he really did do something despicable.  My guess is that some of the pro-exclusion crowd is anti-Gore, because they don't want his innocence revealed to the masses. 72.70.218.150 (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, IP, police investigators, dealing day in and day out with such charges, begin to get a feel for them and eventually start to quietly fail to follow through on the more problematic ones. Pretty standard operating procedure. Yet, really professional outfits make sure they absolutely follow up on each and every one, period--and I suppose Portland is changing over to that mode, now, it appears. In any case, one particular jurisdiction that is in this latter class of super-professional PD outfits was able to provide forensic researchers a lot of useful data that they analysed in order to put what normal police departments simply get a feel for into more black-and-white of academic prose. Here goes. (See link from here.) This place"[...]used a uniquely objective and thorough protocol when investigating rape complaints. Among other procedural safeguards, officers did not have the discretion to drop rape investigations if they concluded the complaint was 'suspect' or unfounded. Every rape accusation had to be thoroughly investigated and included offering a polygraph to both the accuser and the accused. Cases were only determined to be false if and when the accuser admitted that no rape occurred. The researchers further investigated those cases that the police, through their investigation, had ultimately determined were 'false' or fabricated. During the follow-up investigation, the complainants held fast to their assertion that their rape allegation had been true, despite being told they would face penalties for filing a false report. As a result, [...redacted (a minority)] of all of the forcible rape complaints were found to be false. [... ...] As with all of human behavior, there are numerous reasons why a person would lie about being raped. In the study of false rape allegations in the midwestern town and state universities, over half of the accusers fabricated the rape to serve as a 'cover story' or alibi. [...] The next most common reason[...]was revenge, rage, or retribution. [...] For some, it was[...]overwhelming need for attention[...]. Others filed false reports in an attempt to essentially 'extort' money[...]. McDowell's research into the prevalence of false rape allegations provided some direction for the difficult responsibility of differentiating between a potentially true and a possibly false report of rape. McDowell compared the initial rape accusations made by 'proven' victims with those made by 'disproved' complainants. His analysis revealed a number of notable differences between the two groups."I don't want to quote his criteria because this talkpage isn't the place to suggest any specific applicability in the Gore case (viz/ I'm not trying to buttress the original police decision to neglect to follow up thoroughly and in fact think PD's should do so in all instances of such allegations being made.) Anyway, food for thought. And needless to say, it's likely sometimes the case that a victim is indeed being truthful despite whatever appearances to the contrary, as well.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Public relations 101 instructs you to respond to accusations. If there is no response, it's presumed that the accused is guilty.  Whose side are you pro-exclusion folks on? I'm beginning to believe that you're either subversive right-wingers or well-intentioned but ill-advised Gore supporters.  Folks, we need to get the facts out -- on Gore's Wikipedia entry.  Gore is innocent.  This is a man who has sacrificed for 30+ years to champion our causes.  He would not do this, and the FACTS don't support that he did.  So why hide the facts? 72.70.212.18 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We aren't public relations - we're not the news - we're an encyclopedia. We don't take stands. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are an encyclopedia and if we don't take stands, than we should be posting the facts of both sides. For the love of g-d, if this isn't encyclopedic, I don't know that is.  Furthermore, it's not news.  "News" is defined as "New information of any kind."  Other venues (e.g., newspapers) already released this information when it was still considered "news".  We aren't breaking the story!  Don't you want to be able look your grandchildren in the eyes and be able to tell them that you did all that you could do to stop the warming?  Folks, we are pretty powerless, but the one thing we can do now is operate as Gore's de facto public relations team, to post the facts.  Do you realize what the masses think when they see this guy's bio with no mention of the Portland incident?  They are probably thinking that he's had numerous crazed sexcapades -- all of which are being kept under wraps.  I ask you to please put all other considerations aside for a moment and think about the worldwide devastating impact of global warming, which has already begun.  If you give a damn about this (i.e., humanity and the planet), you will want both sides of the Portland incident included, to protect Gore's cred.  Have a heart! 72.70.212.18 (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Appeal to emotion. WP:WEIGHT is what is the important thing here - not whatever personal opinions or emotions we may have on this subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Time to come to a conclusion on inclusion
I think it is time to draw the discussion to a conclusion. It began on June 24, and all on-point arguments seem to have been covered. The discussion is now wandering far afield, into studies on rape, public relations principles and speculation on police investigation practices. Further discussion is likely to be unproductive, because there has been an increase in repetition and tangential discussions as time has gone on. I think it is clearly time to reach a decision, and I hope people will review this sortable table that summarizes the arguments made on this talk page, and make a final vote below.

I have characterized the participants conclusions as "include" and "don't include" although most of "don't includes" agree that if Gore is charged with assault, or if further information develops so this is relevant to his entire life story, then it should be mentioned in his WP bio.

So the issue is: Are the allegations to included right now, or possibly later? I will be starting another section below this one where we can discuss the results seen on the table, and make a final vote. KeptSouth (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Voting

 * Don't include -Including the accusations now is premature. At this point, the incident is not well-documented as required by WP:WELLKNOWN. The accuser has credibility problems, the case has been closed twice by the police for lack of evidence, and now it appears the police have not conducted sufficient interviews. There is no harm in waiting for the results of the police investigation; but there is potential harm to a LP if we incorrectly characterize or discuss these allegations without sufficient facts, especially if it turn out that the allegations are baseless. KeptSouth (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm generally in favour of your position, but what makes this vote final? --FormerIP (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I changed the section title. It was a freudian slip - I meant final for me.KeptSouth (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Include - This incident is common knowledge now, and is a major occurrence in this man's life. Excluding it is not benefiting anyone, and is in fact hurting Gore (because most of the facts are in his favor), and is making Wikipedia appear to lack objectivity and credibility because it looks like a failed attempt to hide something. 72.70.212.18 (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Include - It's a serious allegation, and by filing a police report, the accuser has exposed herself to criminal charges if it's found to be baseless--that goes to establish her credibility, IMO. And the fact of the allegation, police report, and reopened investigation has been reported in many mainstream sources. It should get at least a brief mention, with a link to a suitable external source. -- Narsil (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Include Allegations and an investigation into a felony are enough for inclusion. There can't a BLP issue, since there are thousands of reliable third-party sources, including The New York Times and ABC News, so no one can say that only the Fox Network is pushing this story.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Include The police have restarted the investigation. A variety of news sources have covered this issue and a short sourced paragraph written in a neutral manner would be warranted (including the Gore response). Boromir123 (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't include ...until charges and/or a civil lawsuit is filed against him. I would also support inclusion if the allegations/investigation have a career-altering impact similar to that of Ben Rothlesburger's recent allegations. --NortyNort (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Note Nearly all the "voting" here was done after someone moved to close the discussion -- some of the editors who do not want the material included voiced their comments below: KeptSouth (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe these editors should consider voting like the rest of us. 72.70.199.246 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We already have a conclusion: 14 autoconfirmed users favored inclusion; 14 autoconfirmed users favored exclusion. Therefore no consensus to include this information. A vote won't produce anything different. It's time to close this RfC Sunray (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to close:
 * If there is no consensus on whether to include or exclude, such a finding would give no preference to exclude over to include (see: WP:no consensus). 72.70.199.246 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with any kind of fair closure. The discussion had been degenerating, was completely circular and was leading toward edit war again. In the case of a close call, I believe it is consistent with the spirit of the BLP to not include contentious information from a source which is not well founded.KeptSouth (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that this allegation occurred is not only well-founded, it is indisputable. Anyhow, in a close call, I would err on the side of giving the accused the opportunity to defend himself (i.e., include both sides of the story, as opposed to giving the appearance of a cover up or tacit admission).  That's all from me.  Thank you. 72.70.212.18 (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have made this point numerous times now, that the Wikipedia would be doing a great service to Gore by including scurrilous tabloid-like allegations so that we may nobly defend him by the light of day. While it is an interesting remix of the Internet White Knighting syndrome, it doesn't seem to be catching fire here, so can we drop it? Tarc (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And for the record, the tally table above is a bit tainted; why was my observation on David Vitter's page tallied as an "include" ? Tarc (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but you're welcome to change it. Making the table was more of an effort than I thought it would be byw, but it was interesting to see the progression and repetition of the arguments, and to boil them down a bit. Best regards — KeptSouth (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with the essay "Wikipedia:Don't revert due to 'no consensus'", that the fact some editors dislike mention of the criminal complaint (likely a misdemeanor, btw) on BLP grounds and others believe it imperative to add under BLP's subsection WELLKNOWN isn't itself an argument to disallow it. Hence, I !vote to keep discussion open, for now.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, it is indeed an argument to disallow it. No consensus is no consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant it's not a guideline eg BLP and WELLKNOWN. (The WP:NOCONSENSUS page merely refers to closing afd's.) Hence, citing "no consensus" without hashing out the applicablility of actual content wp:Policy would equate to an empty arguement of wp:DONTLIKEIT, in my opinion.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with this essay ponted out above by [user:FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden  FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden] at least in this case as there is a (in part heated) discussion here on talk about why not to include it at this point. So explanation(s) for revert are given and no consensus for inclusion is reached. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what editors "like or dislike" (on BLP grounds or else). What I think matters is what I already said above and will repeat here as nothing changed since then. Or simpy said, nothing new developed in this "Million-$-Case" to date.
 * Let me quote myself: " Leave the "tabloid trash" out and wait to see if it mounts to a "historical notable incident" in his life. Until then it has no place here."
 * The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, I don't think it has to go in right away, if ever; there's plenty of time. Pithily sloganeering "tabloid trash" communicates something that has validity. And referencing that not only tabloids but the New York Times have covered the scandal/brouhaha has some validity, too, IMO. Anyway, The Magnificent, you claim that you disagree with the essay but I notice that you likewise admit that people's having previously citing actual content policies was essential. The insight of the essay is that reverting a contribution SOLELY with a rationale of no consensus is the same as reverting a contribution with "no comment," since saying "no consensus" contributes no information at all; it's but a filibuster. (Heck, the most basic of all polices is the one of wp:CONSENSUS--I won't deny that. In fact, we could literally say CONSENSUS = wiki--and the project could just have easily been named Consensupaedia.")--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Quote:"...reverting a contribution SOLELY with a rationale of no consensus is the same as reverting a contribution with "no comment",..."
 * Wrong. There are plenty of rationales laid out here on talk that shouldn't be dismissed. And just in case, please don't start a meta discussion about "consensus". Wrong page for that ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the rationales shouldn't be dismissed. The Magnificent, somehow you've understood me as having said the exact opposite of what I hoped I had. (Oh well. I'm rolling this up, with apologies.)--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me quote myself: " Leave the "tabloid trash" out and wait to see if it mounts to a "historical notable incident" in his life. Until then it has no place here."
 * The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with MCK. Please don't include that stuff here.  Innocent until proven guilty and Wikipedia is not a court of law.  It's an encyclopedia. Malke  2010  21:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is declaring Gore guilty or not guilty. We are mearly making known the allegations.  The fact that these allegations were made is significant enough to warrant inclusion, regardless of the outcome. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also would like to add that this alleged incident has gone far beyond the "tabloid trash" that so many are using as a reason to keep it out of the article. This story has been reported by several reputable sources, including the New York Times.  I think the argument of it hurting Wikipedia's credibility and making this site seem like a tabloid is null and void.  If anything keeping this incident from being mentioned on here is hurting Wikipedia's credibility.  And also, the argument that Wikipedia is not a news feed is sort of weak as well.  How long do we have to wait for something to be considered "more than just news?"  These allegations (which are more than just rumors) deserve a sentence of mention, nothing more.  It's not too much to ask. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply repeating yourself day after day isn't going to magically make people change their opinions over to your own, though. At this point, this sort of griping has become at best pointless, at worst counter-productive. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it must be repeated again. In order to emphasize my point, I will repost my previous dialogue here.
 * No one is declaring Gore guilty or not guilty. We are mearly making known the allegations.  The fact that these allegations were made is significant enough to warrant inclusion, regardless of the outcome. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also would like to add that this alleged incident has gone far beyond the "tabloid trash" that so many are using as a reason to keep it out of the article. This story has been reported by several reputable sources, including the New York Times.  I think the argument of it hurting Wikipedia's credibility and making this site seem like a tabloid is null and void.  If anything keeping this incident from being mentioned on here is hurting Wikipedia's credibility.  And also, the argument that Wikipedia is not a news feed is sort of weak as well.  How long do we have to wait for something to be considered "more than just news?"  These allegations (which are more than just rumors) deserve a sentence of mention, nothing more.  It's not too much to ask. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * consensus is what you have not achieved for your point of view, though. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I vote unfortunately too late now to include, been busy with other articles and missed the voteBGinOC (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how a few editors can hold this article hostage, by shouting No Consensus, No Consensus, No Consensus..., every single time. It gets old after a while and to be completly honest, I'm getting really sick and tired of it. Although it seems that a majority of editors think that a brief mention in the article is all that is needed, the minority view seems to be what is being followed in this case. Consensus isn't just about whether or not something should be in or out of an article, as these pointless debates always seem to lead to, it is suppose to be about reaching an agreement on how much or little information is mentioned. Then coming to an agreement that everyone can be happy with. But why does any one care? Its all about winning isn't it? So as long as the minority can continue to stiffle real progress, and get what they want, they can win. Hooray for you all.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like the predicted "ohmygodthisstoryisgonnagetsohugeoverthenextfewdays" didn't pan out. I remain open minded, though, and will personally kick Al Gore in the shins as soon as it becomes absolutely clear that this is the manly and noble thing to do. --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that there was an "ohmygodthisstoryisgonnagetsohugeoverthenextfewdays" policy. Could you link it? Although there is a policy on verifiability. The threshold of verifiability has been surpassed on this story. But of course someone just has to win, don't they? So hold your heads high boys, and give us a big smile. Because you won another argument by stalling debate with another rousing round of No Consensus.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a policy, it's a sort of hysteria mainly affecting the poorly-informed and people who can't find the space bar. --FormerIP (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Poorly Informed"? Is that suppose to be an attack on those who have a differing opinion? And as far as being informed goes, the information comes from every news source in the United States. By that definition, we couldn't use any source at all, for fear of being accused of being "poorly informed".--Jojhutton (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This should most certainly be included JahnTeller07 (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is included, it should just be a sentence. Presently it is an accusation and it is under investigation. Someone earlier reminded everyone that Wikipedia is not a news source. The biography of a living person is not a place for every detail of an accusation such as this. For now, one sentence should suffice. If readers want detail, they can do their own Google search. I think we would all do well to imagine if an accusation about us was being publicly debated by anonymous strangers. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that a sentence or two would be sufficient. Looking at it objectively there are many articles about other people (republicans and democrats alike) that mention something that is just an accusation, and to leave this out would compromise the integrity of the article JahnTeller07 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a few nuetral lines on the subject as it is clear that a majority of users have expressed that are in favor of at least a brief mention of the allegations.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i think that was a good addition, I'm glad a consensus came. Perfectly worded to be neutral...cheers, JahnTeller07 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to add that. Especially the "should just be a sentence" or "sentence or two" that turned out to be two paragraphs in their own section. Seriously? BrendanFrye (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. No consensus to add this material. It has been abundantly discussed. Time to move on with our respective lives. When there are charges, we should re-visit this. Not before. Sunray (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot continue to scream "No-Consensus" every single time. Its disruptive and only stalls progress. If you want to contribute, then please do so, otherwise, the majority have spoken.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jo, WP works by consensus. If consensus is not with you, you can't make the change. Even if there were a majority in favour of mentioning this (which I don't think there is), there certainly isn't a majority in favour of creating a whole section about it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "When there are charges" is not the threshold for inclusion in many other politically-oriented BLPs (I would bet most of them are conservatives/Republicans). This story has been going on for a month now and he has been interviewed by the police.  We'll see if the threshold is raised yet again if there are charges in this incident or other alleged incidents (then will it be "if he is convicted?"). Drrll (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

July 21, 2010 update: New York Post "Two other women claim Al Gore abused them"
link 71.182.187.60 (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break
Please read WP:Consensus, or if you don't wish to, I will cut and paste a section for you, so that you see that the minoroty view should not prevail:


 * Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes.

That is directly from the policy, that you are now in violation of by removing this information. Per WP:Consensus I expect the section to be immediatly returned to the page.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When was this majority decision taken? How much more than a simple majority was deemed necessary in this case and what percentage of "include" votes was achieved? --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple majority means More Than One. I found a majority of 9-7 in favor of inclusion, yet you admit that you didn't think that there was a majority, and therefor you didn't really know, so per WP:Consensus, you removed information from an article against consensus, and it needs to be restored please.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLP. It trumps consensus on this issue. moreno oso (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jo, there have been an awful lot of comments on this issue. If you found 9-7, this can only be because you chose to look only at certain comments (ie you only thought that 16 comments were important, for some reason). --FormerIP (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by simple majority in any case. Supermajorities are sometimes used as indicators of consensus. But BLPs must be "written conservatively" and we must exercise the "greatest care." Sunray (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Negative. BLP says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". While there is an allegation that is getting press, it is unproven or non-verified. WP:BLP and WP:V require that the allegation be true for inclusion. moreno oso (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feed back, but please feel free to take a look at the sources before you call something poorly sourced. By the way that your going on, you'd think that the only source for this info is a youtube video. In fact The New York Times has been a good enough source for several years now, but you must have a different opinion.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So on that basis Morenooso, I would assume that you would support removal of the Anita Hill allegations from the Clarence Thomas BLP because "WP:BLP and WP:V require that the allegation be true for inclusion". Drrll (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think so (wrong target of allegations?). Drrll (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I didn't go back all that far during my first count, but I just rectified that. I went back to the beginning and came up with a new majority that is still in favor of inclusion. 16 to include, 13 to not include and 1 nuetral. That count (according to WP:Consensus) is enough for inclusion. I trust that you will go back and check my numbers, in fact I'm counting on it.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you missed it, not only does WP:BLP supercede consensus which is not overwhelming for inclusion but this article is on probation. moreno oso (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jo, I'm not going to count, but 13-16 doesn't cut it IMO (according to which bit of WP:Consensus is that enough?), and I also think you are still not counting all the comments. --FormerIP (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know any other way to define simple majority, other than 50% +1, which taking into account the new contibutor, the majority to include is now 16-14. And BTW, Morenooso, go read WP:BLP before you start using it as a argument please.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Jojhutton, you go read because I know it cold. And, the article probation will factor well if this is edit-warred on. moreno oso (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than misquoting WP:BLP, you really haven't made a point, other than threatening me. Why didn't you remind anyone else about the article probation, unless of course you are using it as an argument, which it seems that you are.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's be very clear about this: I've made no threats. I've cited policy. You can interpret that anyway you want. moreno oso (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jo, the guidance you quoted above says: "More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes". You understand what the phrase in bold means? What discussion was there in this case about how much more? Given the BLP issues in this case, I reckon the requirement would be comparatively high. --FormerIP (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't exactly a major change now is it? Its a Nuetral admission of facts that has been reported on by several reliable sources. A majority of editors have expressed that it should be included and the minority view should not take precedence over the majority.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's changing the article for not calling him a sex pest to calling him a sex pest, so I would class it as a major change. --FormerIP (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show me the diff where it was added that he was a sex pest. Remember, it was written nuetrally, please don't exaggerate, your smarter than that.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Here is the diff: . I anticipation you won't be happy with that, an example quote is: Hagerty filed a complaint with Portland Police stating that Gore groped her. If this were my biogaphy, I would regard that change as major. --FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still didn't see the term Sex Pest. All I saw were cited facts. Was there anything that was written that was not a fact?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What's your point now? That the article doesn't use the actual words "sex pest"? --FormerIP (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you said and I quote It's changing the article for not calling him a sex pest to calling him a sex pest. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't misquoting the reliable sources. All I still see are cited verifiable facts. There isn't one iota of speculation or unsourced opinion in any of it. If there is, then please point it out to me, so I can rectify the problem.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[redent] This current discussion is called "arbitrary break". But what really would be arbitrary would be to read just one of the several prior threads/or sections that discussed whether the allegations should be in Gore's bio -- and that is exactly what is being done by some editors.

The fact is, there was voluminous discussion that occurred in several threads. There was one thread that was declared "closed" that a few people continued to post in and declare that they were achieving consensus while several other threads concluded there was no consensus. If all the discussion is looked at, it is clear there is no consensus, there has been no real trend toward reaching a consensus, and therefore, the material should not be included in the article at this time.KeptSouth (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any closed discussions above thsi thread. Who declared a discussion closed and when was this done. Even if there was a closed discussion above, is it proper to dismiss the majority opinion by claiming no consensus, just to win. Very disruptive indeed.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * KeptSouth has this exactly right - there has been much discussion and it has not yielded anything close to consensus to add this material. Its significance to his entire life story has not been demonstrated, and until it is we would not include it.  Someone mentioned Michael Vick way upstream  - my response to that is if you were to stop 100 people on an American street and ask what they know about Michael Vick, I believe 100 out of 100 would talk about the dog fighting, if they had heard of him at all.    If you stopped 100 people and asked about Al Gore I doubt even one would mention alleged groping charges - they would talk about his being Senator or VP, or the 2000 election, or his environmental work, or his Nobel prize, or even his separation from Tipper -- these are all  central parts of his life story.  This groping story is not, at least not now. Tvoz / talk 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All your doing is speculating. We need facts. Why do you think that there is no consensus? What leads you to believe that the minority opinion on this topic supercedes the majority. Is there something in WP:Consensus, that supports your opinion of no consensus, and why? Just the facts please, we have had enough of the theatrics.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Joj but the theatrics appear to be largely coming from you, and other "inclusionists". You have claimed that someone is threatening you because they reminded you the article is on probation. You have also engaged in a bit of hyperbole in claiming the New York Times has reported this incident. It simply isn't true: the AP did, the NYT did not. Both you and I know that the NYT argument is usually misused: is the ultimate reliable source when it suits one's POV, and liberal or conservative trash when it does not. You also seem to act as though there's an real emergency - that the allegations must be put in Gore's bio asap. Why? The third police investigation will soon run its course. If they don't send the case to prosecutor, then isn't it for the best that we kept unsubstantiated, "he said/she said" rumors out of a biography of a living person? To claim there is a real emergency or that there is censorship or to imply there is a tyrannical minority imposing a certain POV sounds like pure theatrics to me. To count and recount the votes or opinions on this talk page is even more theatrics.


 * You also seem to be ignoring the fact that WP consensus policies and procedures give more weight to well reasoned arguments than to bare assertions. And, as someone mentioned above, you are disregarding the WP policy of conservative treatment of BLPs that disfavors the inclusion of poorly sourced material. Yes, the AP is a good source, but the ultimate source here is not just the media - it is the woman who is making the allegations. Many of her allegations do not have the ring of truth, and are likely unprovable as well as incredible. Therefore, the people who want to keep the tabloid-ish allegations out of the bio have won the argument - unless and until there is something more such as a criminal court case. Regards KeptSouth (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, "There you go again".--Jojhutton (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, when someone doesn't have anything to say, it's always nice to quote the excellent actor, Ronald Reagan, who did so much to increase the theatrics of politics. "Tear down that wall", I always say when I have nothing to say.KeptSouth (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, its not "I didn't have sex with that woman...", but whatever gets results.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * KeptSouth has nailed it, IMO. A tightly-reasoned overview of the policy considerations with respect to this case. Sunray (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)